Hi, I wanted to go ahead and discuss the changes to the music section of this article. The page The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (soundtrack) passed Afc and was published into article space today. To me, the material seems notable enough to warrant its separate existence from this main page, as many (if not most) soundtrack articles already do. If that is to be the case, then I do also think that we will need to restore some version of the edits contributed by IP address 110.225.230.167. However, I would like to hear the perspective of @Adamstom.97 and his reasoning. Additionally, if the editor behind the IP address @110.225.230.167 sees this message and would like to weight in further, please do so, as well as @Dan arndt, who published the article into draft space. This [1] is the version of the page that we would probably need to revert to. Thank you, and I hope we can reach consensus. TNstingray (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware that the article passed AfC and I do think it is fine if that is the direction we want to go in, my issue is that I don't it is the right move in terms of article structure and it is a pretty major change to make without discussion. I appreciate the IP editor being WP:BOLD and setting it up, but I followed WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and reverted to before the major changes so we could have the discussion first.
Note that I left this message for the IP editor as a starting point for this discussion and my thoughts are mostly the same as what I said over there. Basically, splitting off the music to a soundtrack article like this is common for film articles but less so for TV articles and is not necessarily the best way to present this information, especially for a series that will have multiple soundtrack releases. The Mandalorian had a very similar situation where a soundtrack article was created but it was decided that lumping together the music for the whole series didn't make the most sense. Instead that information was dispersed throughout the season and episode articles, which is what I had been intending for us to do here as well (you can see drafts for the planned season and episode articles at Draft:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1), Draft:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 2), and Draft:Shadow of the Past (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)). Obviously I am still open to discussing the best approach now that we have different options suggested.
Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I overlooked your direct message to the IP address, so I apologize for any confusion of also starting a conversation here. Music has been a significant part of Middle-earth and its adaptations, and I do still think that there is enough information to warrant its existence as its own article. As of now, I am in favor of leaving it as "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (soundtrack)", as to do otherwise would be WP:TOOSOON. Eventually, I hope that the content regarding the Rings of Power music can be re-organized into an article a la Music of The Lord of the Rings film series, but I don't think we have enough to warrant that transition just yet. I haven't even listened to the soundtrack yet due to potential spoilers, but I would wait until there is significant commentary on the themes and leitmotifs, which may or may not tie into Shore's greater work for the Jackson films. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I do recommend holding off on listening to it if you can, I have been struggling to not listen to it and have definitely gotten some spoilers!
WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOHURRY are why I recommended we hold off on any structure changes for a bit and do any work on a potential "Music of..." article in the draftspace. Apparently we will be getting more soundtrack albums in a week or so for the first two episodes and we should have a clearer idea of how best to handle this then. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. I didn't realize we would be getting episode-specific soundtrack albums as well, but that would definitely change things. If it would reduce clutter, I guess we could still keep the soundtrack article in main-space, remove the track listing from this page, and link to it as a "See also:". Then, we could still let a hypothetical Music of the Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power draft marinate as we get more information, and then merge the pages if necessary. I don't know. Now, I don't really have a strong opinion one weight or another. I'll defer to you based on editing experience both in general and on this specific topic.
And yeah, part of me hates that they dropped the entire soundtrack so early because it has just been sitting there in my saved albums on Spotify, wearing down my willpower like the titular pieces of jewelry :) TNstingray (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Reducing clutter isn't a bad idea, this article is already so big it's in the "may need to be divided" category at WP:SIZERULE before the show has even come out! That will change once we can split out the season-specific info since there is so much NZ-specific stuff that will only apply to the first season and not the show as a whole moving forward, but I've been holding off suggesting that until season two begins filming per WP:NFTV. I might do as you suggest and just take the track list out for now, leave the new soundtrack article, and then we can reconvene once further soundtrack albums come out. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you two have mostly sorted this, but I just wanted to chime in to say that I too think clutter reduction and an independent soundtrack article are likely good ideas (though time will tell of course). Though it is a bit unusual for a show as opposed to a movie, this show is a bit unusual in some ways--budget being one that stands out to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Reception should consider the financial picture
Why does the reception section just consist of comments on the races of the actors?
There is information online on how this production was received as a work of fiction apart from just the color of the skin of the actors.
Although it is financially more profitable to keep criticism of this production contained to reprehensible and illegal practices such as racism.
“The only people who dislike this production must be criminals and degenerates, there is nothing else to criticize apart from the skin color of the actors; it is a flawless piece of art” is the most profitable way to market this, we know that.
But I think we should not make it this obvious we have been paid off to guarantee the financial success of this production. We should at least mention “some” critical sources who we are not labelling as racists and trolls just so that the article is less on the nose and more in line with other articles. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
How do we know how this production was received as a work of fiction apart from just the color of the skin of the actors when it has yet to come out? Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I mean, we have seen the trailers, and they mostly contradict Tolkien's writings. That's what most critics was about. (For example, how could Galadriel feel vengeance, when she's an elf, and her whole family is drinking tequila in Valinor?) Live For Kill (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, I'd say that's reception of the trailers--how something "is received as a work of fiction" really, to my mind, depends on being able to experience the work of fiction, and not just teasers therefrom. Reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
In that case, the whole "Reception" segment is useless, since it doesn't address any of the criticism of the show (except the racist strawman of Amazon), and the show isn't out yet. I suggest a complete deletion for now, and rewriting on, let's say, a week after the release of the first two episodes? (A bit offtopic, but Tolkien wrote Elrond has jet black hair.) Live For Kill (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, as I say below, part of the issue is that there has been some reception in reliable sources, but it simply doesn't really incorporate these critiques. To repeat another of my thoughts, I think it's a "man bites dog" situation: "the characters looks diverge from the books" seems to be less of a news story than "hey! Diverse actors in a Tolkien work!" I am not passing moral judgment in saying that, merely that it seems to be the way coverage is breaking down. If you can find reliable secondary sources that incorporate such criticism, I am certainly open to adding them. I don't think it's appropriate to do away with reception right now, as there has been some in the reliable sources. Essentially, we're faced with a situation where we have a bunch of Wikipedia-defined reliable sources saying one thing, and a bunch of people on the internet saying another. It doesn't mean the sources are right, but Wikipedia has chosen to reflect the former rather than the latter. This may all change when the show comes out (in two days, I think?). And maybe it's already out there! I promise, I'll give anything you want to present that has an argument based on WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY a fair shake. And if you can convince enough people other than me, you don't need my opinion anyway! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was referencing with Finrod. Tolkien wrote Finrod is alive in Valinor. Your reliable source wrote Finrod is dead and Galadriel is avenging him. Some source writes claims it's false, provides reference to the original material, but Wiki ignores it, because this source is unreliable for some reason (see the boundingtocomics.com reference).
What makes the situation even weirder, is in this case, the primary and secondary sources are the same! Tolkien wrote Beleg as having black hair, he made a painting of Beleg wearing blue clothes near a brown tree with green leaves, but you can't write to Wiki because the only source it has, is Tolkien himself, and everyone else is just repeating him. That's why you see so many people poking at this section, since people who were already caught lying are deemed as reliable source, and everyone else quoting Tolkien is automatically unreliable source. (Which also means it's almost impossible to have secondary sources of Tolkien...)
This is just an inaccurate assessment of the situation. Tolkien's direct words cannot apply to the show because he is currently unable to share his actual thoughts or opinions. That's why we rely on secondary sources and presenting their applications/interpretations of said works when appropriate. And are you aware that cinematic adaptations typically have to change the source material? Doing so does not threaten Tolkien's legacy whatsoever... my copies of the books still read exactly the same. TNstingray (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, TNstingray. Live for Kill--I have never seen this painting of Beleg, but I should like to! And the problem we're running into is the difference between "this is what Tolkien wrote" and (exaggerating to make my point) "this is a grave crime against Tolkien." Were the old Professor alive today, I think it's completely unknown what he might make of the casting. He might well think it in derogation of his work, but I also think there's a very real chance that he would appreciate the sort of widened approach. All guesswork at this stage. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Many YouTube videos and articles can be found where trailers, Amazon's comments and cast's comments are carefully analysed, pointing out that adhering to Tolkien's work was not the priority. The Lord of the Rings is considered by many to be more than a fantasy story and they therefore did not appreciate Amazon using Tolkien's work to represent today's society instead of focusing on Tolkien's timeless stories. Comments of people of colour can also be found where they express their discontentment with the Rings of Power, explaining that they identify with values and not a skin colour. 84.203.101.22 (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the casting backlash section excessively undue? Its just one part of the audience and there is also a large negative reaction to some other creative decisions which has been mentioned inmany sources. Disa's lack of a beard itself received major backlash as mentioned in some sources. I believe casting backlash should be under a general audience reaction. -UtoD11:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
"The mega-budget fantasy series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is under fire from some of its viewers. A day after the first two episodes of Amazon’s billion-dollar baby debuted on Prime Video, the show’s average audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is a “rotten” 37 percent, and reviews on Amazon have been outright suspended. ...the majority of the negative reviews — whatever the writers’ private feelings — criticized the show for non-diversity reasons. “They spent a billion dollars on backdrops and a film score,” wrote one. “The rest is slow moving, wooden acting and there is no reason to actually like the main characters. There is no soul to any of it.”
The source provided frames the situation as an example of review-bombing. “Review bombing” is when a group of online users post numerous negative reviews for a product or service due to its perceived cultural or political issues rather than its actual quality. Perusing Rotten Tomatoes’ audience reviews for Rings of Power, there are some one-star entries that meet the definition. This possibly warrants inclusion in the Reception section. At the moment, I am leaning towards moving the casting backlash as it currently exists to the Casting section, since it primarily deals with material prior to the show's release. TNstingray (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe it would be more accurate to say that the source postulates that review-bombing is responsible for some of the negative reviews and then states "If review bombing is occurring, the audience score will likely rise." (Emphasis mine). 178.251.173.106 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Possibly. From what I read, the writer for the Hollywood Reporter seems to pretty clearly discuss review-bombing, so to use this source would mean to present it as such. In other words, we can't phrase it as "The show was negatively reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes and Amazon, possibly as a result of review-bombing", and then use a source that seems to definitively blame review-bombing as occurring. Make sense? TNstingray (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
As long as the salient facts from the article are included, there is no problem with the mention of review-bombing, but I would caution you not to imply or write off all negative reviewers "as bigots, racists, homophobic, or misogynists, which appears to be the go-to answer for those who are bending over backwards to defend the show." (See the section below for context and recent developments.) Bear in mind the headline of the article - Is ‘The Rings of Power’ Getting Review Bombed? - which is not definitive. 178.251.173.106 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I left a comment for you in the section below as well. There's a lot of threads to keep up with :)
Trust me, I haven't written off all negative reviewers as these things (though I have certainly seen my share of all of them), though my personal opinion is that a large proportion of the negative criticism has some overlapping generalizations such as misrepresenting the show-runners, not understanding the point of an adaptation, or the romanticization of Jackson's trilogy. But those are perhaps discussions for another place and another time, as that is based on my experience and not on reliable sources. TNstingray (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
TNstingray I reverted your bold move of the backlash section from Reception to Casting because we previously moved it from Casting to Reception after a discussion here, I think we should discuss before moving it back. Can you explain why you think the Casting section is more appropriate for this info? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the OneRing.net source, @Dumuzid and I decided that this was not a reliable source, and they found the one from CNET that is probably more reliable, though perhaps you are correct in saying that it does not support the casting of other people of color besides Henry.
With actual critical reception starting to trickle in, I guess I started trending in favor of moving the casting backlash to the casting section to allow focus on actual critical commentary and general response in the reception section. Plus, I was under the impression that the Reception section would ultimately consist of responses to the show once it actually came out, though so many of these conversations are running together in my mind. TNstingray (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Backlash to the casting applies to the whole show, not just marketing materials, and it is separate from the process of actually hiring the cast so I think the Reception section is still the best place for it. Having its own subsection to separate it from the general critical response should help with your concerns about focusing on actual critical responses. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is an inconsistent approach. I actually think the article needs a separate "Criticisms" or something section - because most of the criticisms are not dealt with anywhere, despite insistence that they are. The one criticism - regarding casting - stands out because it is in the section where no other criticism was permitted. At least in its own section it can be given proper treatment. I have been looking at a lot of material about this show - positive, negative, neutral, mixed - and the "backlash" that can be honestly attributed to racism or sexism is real but exceedingly small in proportion to the rest. Rest assured, I am aware that this counts as either my own research or synthesis and I am not intending to put it into the article unless and until someone "reliable" discusses it. LowKey (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not inconsistent. We have sources covering backlash to the casting, other fan complaints about the series, critical responses to the marketing, and new critical responses to the series itself. The casting backlash applies to the cast, which has not changed now that the series is out, so that fits in the reception section. The other fan complaints were all based on marketing materials and therefore are discussed in the marketing section. The critical responses to the marketing are also there, while the new critical responses to the actual series are going in the reception section. When we have good sources for general audience response to the actual series we can put those in the reception section as well. The only real question is how to structure the reception section at that point, there will be some overlap between a general audience response subsection, a viewership subsection, and the current casting backlash subsection that we will need to sort out. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97 The material we have presented under "Casting backlash" deals exclusively with responses to the original casting and subsequent critical commentary during the immediate aftermath (all before the show came out). After further consideration, it makes more sense to have this under the Casting section. TNstingray (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is restricted to the immediate aftermath of the casting, I am seeing it brought up a lot still now that the show is out. Seems to me that we should be integrating it with whatever general audience response section we end up having. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It's complicated, I agree. I would say that there is still casting backlash, but it's been a lot more general to include Morfydd Clark and Charles Edwards in addition to the backlash to other castings we have discussed previously (though I do not have a source, so therefore my only legitimate argument for change is essentially based on semantics).
I have been considering the possibility that we could separate out some of this information into a page similar to Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, this would be based in proper sourcing rather than a forum of people to throw in their opinions. But if we can gather and establish that, it may divert some of the unsavory attention from this page. I am still in the early stages of considering this... your thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think we are already planning to have so many separate articles for this topic that we may want to hold off on spinning-off anything else for a bit, and though it would be nice to move some of this attention away from the article, if we are just moving it to another article it will either be no different or we could ignore that article which would be asking for trouble I think.
There is a bit of work to be done sorting out all of the reception info for the show at this point and I am planning to do some of that myself, it may be useful for me to do some work in my sandbox on it and then come back with a proposal for how I think we could structure everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Specific geography of middle earth and ethnic groups originating from said geographic location.
I and number of people are not racist for stating that middle earth has it own cultures and race's with their own unique geographic and lore based orgins. That has nothing to do with talented actors and actresses no matter what their background or social/cultural identities may be, it has to do with casting the right roles for the regions and races of middle earth, also race is a stupid outdated way of creating racism, really all it is is a way to say skin color defines a person to a specific identity. There are many biological differences that people have from different regions of the world because humans are animals and we adapted over millions of years to our environments, and Tolkien took this into account when designing his world. Yes there may be some racists out there but I least hope they are out numbered by those of us who just want the stories we grew up with respected. 2601:248:183:73C0:6D7D:E2B3:6F82:6581 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry you somehow feel disrespected. But they're not your stories any more than they are mine. Tolkien unleashed a force upon the world that is in many ways larger even than his own work -- witness how bog standard fantasy now seemingly always has elves, dwarves, and orcs. But with that comes the right for people to reinterpret the work. I am not saying you have to like it. And you are certainly welcome to voice your opinion. But Wikipedia works by referencing reliable sources, not what editors believe or argue to be true. If we went the latter route, you and I would argue here in circles and never reach a conclusion. Publish your own work on why you think whatever is wrong is a mistake, but until you have reliable sources backing up what you say here, it's not really something with which Wikipedia can deal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Why do you think that the OP in this section is expressing frustration, Dumuzid? Is it perhaps because people with a genuine, negative critical opinion are being labelled racist in this article? And why would the comment above this one express cynicism? Is it perhaps because they've read the whole article, and this talk page, and concluded that it is in fact you who clearly has a hidden agenda? 178.251.173.106 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
My agenda is quite open: to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do apologize if answering the same questions and critiques repeatedly has made me a bit short, but people are coming here to vent their frustration with this piece of fiction. That's not what Wikipedia is for. We summarize the major opinions as represented in reliable sources. 99% of the people in the world could hold the same opinion, but if no source says it, it is improper for Wikipedia purposes. I apologize if that is frustrating. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Here you go then...
"The mega-budget fantasy series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is under fire from some of its viewers. A day after the first two episodes of Amazon’s billion-dollar baby debuted on Prime Video, the show’s average audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is a “rotten” 37 percent, and reviews on Amazon have been suspended. ...the majority of the negative reviews — whatever the writers’ private feelings — criticized the show for non-diversity reasons. “They spent a billion dollars on backdrops and a film score,” wrote one. “The rest is slow moving, wooden acting and there is no reason to actually like the main characters. There is no soul to any of it.”
I am fine with including something along those lines, but think we should also mention the possibility of review bombing, since that is the context of the article. You'll note that this is already being discussed above, and I would encourage you to share your thoughts there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
{BTW, you mentioned the discussion above re: review bombing. The last comment is actually mine. I'm awaiting a response (or an edit) from TNstingray...} 178.251.173.106 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Great. How about something like this. This is also seems a very balanced/neutral opinion piece...
OPINION: It’s ok to not like Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
"It seems Amazon is feeling the heat in the wake of The Rings of Power premiere yesterday and has opted to remove user reviews, at least for the time being. There has also been a push to remove user scores from websites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes as well."
"The reasoning given by Amazon is not unfamiliar, as they have blamed the choice to remove the scores on audience review bombing which, in all honestly, is probably happening."
"Personally, I never enjoy the idea of a review bomb, but it is a legitimate form of protest and boycott by an audience who should, at the very least, not be written off as bigots, racists, homophobic, or misogynists, which appears to be the go-to answer for those who are bending over backwards to defend the show."
Well again Dumuzid, you appear to be wilfully missing the point. You have your Reliable Source in the shape of the Hollywood Reporter article. If you want to talk about review bombing then use your own words. The above ideas were merely a suggestion. I would edit the article myself but I'm prevented from doing so by whoever "Protected" the article from edits from new or occasional contributors... 178.251.173.106 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
No doubt you'll deem this source as "less useful" too, but the claim in the first sentence is extraordinary, if true...
"...there are reports that IMDb (owned by Amazon) has started to remove negative and even generally neutral reviews, which is causing the series' rating to go up. On the other platforms, however, the situation is quite different. For example, on Rotten Tomatoes the user rating of "Rings of Power" was only 35% and on Metacritic the users' rating was 2.3 points out of 10."
Amazon deleting negative reviews of Rings of Power.
I say this as someone who has enjoyed the show so far - deleting the negative written reviews of your own program on what is supposed to be a completely user-driven database is abhorrent, slimy, corrupt and has completely tainted my view of the show. This serves a stark reminder that professor Tolkien would have despised Amazon and everything this rotten company represents. IMDb existed long before Amazon and it is not their personal promotional tool.
So, one of the facets of Wikipedia is the usage of reliable sourcing. Editor consensus at WP:THR indicates that it is generally reliable. For the full list, please see WP:RSPSS. Niche Gamer and Gagadget are not notable enough to have been discussed, which is why I would advise staying away from them as reliable sources; plus, the Niche Gamer is an opinion piece anyway. IMDB is listed as generally unreliable (WP:IMDB) due to it being user-generated. As Wikipedia editors, we try to utilize specific, consistent criteria for determing reliable sources, so maybe you would find it helpful to peruse WP:RS.
Now, regarding your last few statements... this is opinionated, original research on your part. deleting the negative written reviews of your own program... is abhorrent, slimy, corrupt... This is not as cut-and-dry as it seems. Being user-driven or user-friendly does not give anybody the right to say what they want. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Companies such as Amazon, Twitter, or Wikipedia have policies, and if a user violates the policies, then technically the company has the right to monitor and censor that. See WP:FREE. Of course, this is shifting towards my own opinionated, original research, but I think it is helpful for it to be said. Your sources do not state what was said in the deleted reviews, but I know that Amazon has stated that their censorship is more in the form of a delay so they can process reviews to ensure that none of them are spam. That is a completely different framing of the situation. TNstingray (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Let me help you out a little here, TNstingray, so you don't judge my actions by your opinion of the motivations of others. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other regarding the show. What I care about is whether or not I can trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased and incorruptible source of information. Having read the article, and this talk page, I have come to the conclusion that both you and Dumuzid have a hidden agenda. All my contributions to this talk page have been to test that conclusion. 178.251.173.106 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
To the IP, your accusations are definitely charged with WP:RGW and also assume bad faith on part of the editors. The editors have already explained that you could not adhere to WP:RS and provide reliable sources to support your claim. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, this sort of back and forth clearly won't result in anything productive. I thought that I very clearly outlined applicable aspects of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sourcing, while also providing the links for you to read them yourself. You opinions/claims are expressed throughout this thread, unless multiple people are using your IP address. TNstingray (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@TNstingray I think this is a troll, and as such, this is just a timesink and should be ignored. On the other hand, I think the reception should be expanded, and contain enough reviews that are both positive and negative to adhere to WP:NPOV. I can post some sources if needed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let's start over (from 12 hours ago - see above). Why are you so reluctant to quote from this paragraph from an established Reliable Source?
"The mega-budget fantasy series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is under fire from some of its viewers. A day after the first two episodes of Amazon’s billion-dollar baby debuted on Prime Video, the show’s average audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is a “rotten” 37 percent, and reviews on Amazon have been outright suspended. ...the majority of the negative reviews — whatever the writers’ private feelings — criticized the show for non-diversity reasons. “They spent a billion dollars on backdrops and a film score,” wrote one. “The rest is slow moving, wooden acting and there is no reason to actually like the main characters. There is no soul to any of it.”
We can incorporate that paragraph, but we need to make sure all viewpoints are represented--this being a reliable source, among them. Moreover, quoting that entire paragraph seems overly undue and to raise copyright concerns to me, but reasonable minds can certainly differ on the point. Dumuzid (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think quoting the entire paragraph is excessive, but yes, certain parts of the paragraph may definitely be quoted to support claims, such as review bombing and whatnot. Additional sources to further reinforce the review bombing will also help bolster any content regarding the review bombing. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
So, wait, you are of the opinion that it is review bombing, so despite this article doing a good job of raising the question of review bombing, explaining what that means, and deciding that "the majority" of reviews are not that, you will keep looking to "further reinforce review review bombing". It is interesting that the article does mention the polarized ratings (best possible and worst possible) and does suggest that this means that there is some level of "outrage" being expressed - which is a bit of an oddity. I would think it suggests the there is some level of voting both ways not based on the actual show. I think that there is certainly too much in the article for large sale quoting but would suggest that these elements be included: the title raising the question, the definition of review bombing, "the majority of negative reviews...criticized the show for non-diversity reasons", the polarized ratings. LowKey (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Viewership
The viewership section discusses only what Amazon prime themselves say about viewership. Surely this is not a reliable source. The guidance available at MOS:TVRECEPTION is that Information about audience viewership should use reliably sourced official ratings data, such as Nielsen ratings (US), Numeris (CAN), BARB (UK), OzTAM (AU) and similar reliable sources. Amazon Prime's self-reported an unverifiable claims should not be considered reliable. Until reliable viewership information is sourced, this subsection should be removed. LowKey (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a reasonable point. I don't know if there is any guidance for such a thing, but I do not believe the normal ratings systems track streaming on Amazon. I'll have to take a look. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, I do not think there is any independent data on streaming viewership. From what I understand, sometimes even the makers of the shows are not told the viewership of their own shows. The alternative to having no data is having data vetted and produced only by those who have a vested interest - which is no solution. LowKey (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions here, but I am afraid by my lights, the claim has been so widely covered that it needs to be in the article. It is currently attributed, which I think is appropriate, but if you wanted to add a further note of caution, that could work. Dumuzid (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I will have a look. I think the tone should be "Amazon claims xyz" and not just "Amazon reports/releases xyz". I don't think additional cautionary wording beyond that would be needed. Although a better word than "claimed" would be good because that word is often used as way to imply "falsely claimed" which isn't what the article should be saying; it is just a case of nobody but Amazon having the actual data. LowKey (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, most of it already had the tone I mentioned. I made one minor change from "revealed" to "publicly stated". There are two reasons for that. Firstly, it really is just a statement, not a sharing of the data. Secondly, for all we know they reveal such things confidentially to particular parties, so this is the first "going public". I get what you say about being widely covered. It seems to me that what is widely covered is Amazon's announcement (i.e. all roads lead to Prime) but I think the current wording reflects that. LowKey (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I think your change is completely appropriate--and yes, while it's Amazon at the end of all roads, a lot of respectable places think it's at least worth covering. I share a bit of your skepticism, but again, this is one of those ways that Wikipedia keeps us from getting into circular arguments with essentially no evidence. The system around here really is the worst, with the exception of all of the alternatives. Dumuzid (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@LowKey: we will add viewership data from third party sources when it is available. Nielsen ratings for streaming shows are often released three or four weeks later, you just need to be patient. For now, Amazon has announced their viewership data and whether you trust it or not it is completely noteworthy and should not be removed. Your constant attempts to go against standard processes just because you don't want anything positive about the series to be included in the article is getting ridiculous and tiring. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Please stop the baseless accusations. I actually specifically re-read the standard process, and the article had not followed it. Read what I wrote I note what I edited. I made ONE change here and half of that was because Amazon may already be releasing data so we should say they haven't. Amazon's announcement is noteworthy, yes. It is not reliable, though. I have not had a problem with the article including a great deal of positivity regarding the series. I have had a problem with the article's bias in ignoring or waving away criticisms. I am striving for actual neutrality rather than presuming that my own position is the default neutral, which is what seems to have been happening. I find your constant hostile response because you don't want anything less-than-positive about the series to be included in the article quite tiring, but here I am still striving to collaborate with you on this article. I am striving for actual neutrality and actual accuracy. LowKey (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
You literally created this discussion thread asking for the section to be removed before you bothered to read it properly and realized that it actually matched the tone that you were happy with. And turning my wording around to claim that I "don't want anything less-than-positive about the series to be included" is silly since I am the one who added the viewership data with the cautious tone that you support, and I am the one who added all the commentary about fan complaints and other criticisms to the marketing section. You may say that you are striving for "actual neutrality", but as has been pointed out to you already neutrality does not mean acknowledging the positive and negative feedback equally, neutrality means representing what is in reliable sources with WP:DUEWEIGHT and that is what I have been supporting all along. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I am still primarily of the opinion that the section should be removed. However, I accept that that is my opinion and a different POV is that it is notable enough to retain. Given that, I had not initially evaluated the overall tone (merely the content), and when I did found it largely neutral but still needing some minor improvement. I can only see two reasons why that is a problem - 1. you simply don't like me editing or discussing or 2. you think your editing needs no improvement. "All the commentary" about fan complaints in the marketing section is a single sentence, followed by an entire paragraph dismissing it. But whatever. My currentopinion is that you are quite biased in your interpretation of what is reliable and what is due weight, but I am hoping to change that opinion over time. It is difficult, though, when you attack almost every comment or edit I make. I am not making any major or sweeping changes but minor tweaks which I explain and also moderate to improve the article in an acceptable manner. I am trying not to be hostile myself, but you make that increasingly difficult. Nevertheless I shall continue to try. LowKey (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
On this, maybe there needs to be more guidance developed. We still call streaming series "TV Shows" (both here and IRL) but really, they are ... what? They are watched on televisions, but also phones, tablets, computers etc. Essentially they just aren't cinema-only shows. LowKey (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you watch it on, it is the same medium. I doubt you would argue that something like The Big Bang Theory is not a TV show, if you watch an episode of that show on your phone does it stop being one? Regardless, this is not the place to discuss your opinions on what counts as a TV show. Go to WP:TV or MOS:TV if you have concerns about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough about where to discuss, but I notice that you discussed your opinions before telling me to go elsewhere. It is topical here, because we are discussing a style that may or may not apply. I get your point about "what you watch it on" but would look at for what is it produced? Some are produced for online streaming platforms rather than DTB TV. I was merely saying that it bears on the particular issue I was discussing, but you seem to have personal issue with me even being here. I am here. Get over it. I am open about voicing concerns in talk. I am quite conservative and cautious about edits, usually giving an explanation and also taking on commentary to improve my edit to achieve something acceptable and improving to the article. LowKey (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem with you being here if you are constructive. Calling me out about my example before highlighting better places to discuss is fair enough, I could have not done that. I still disagree that we need to discuss this here though, consensus at WP:TV is that there is no difference between series made for streaming services and broadcast (for example, consensus is against using terms such as "streaming series" over "television series"). And the guidelines at MOS:TV started out as mostly for broadcast TV, but have been updated many times in the era of streaming and continue to do so where required. I'm not against adding more guidance for streaming series to MOS:TVAUDIENCE as it is currently mostly relevant to broadcast TV, but I think there are already good examples of ways to cover this appropriately for streaming shows (I recently expanded the viewership section at Peacemaker (TV series), that show does not have Nielsen ratingsbut there are other sources of data that I was able to use in addition to HBO Max's announcements; I figured that we would be doing something similar here once viewership data starts being released by different companies). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Before you go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, this is Wikipedia policy that (should) be practiced across all relevant Wikipedia articles. TNstingray (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Just on this repeated admonition about policies that are to be practiced, it should be noted that Wikipedia has no firm rules. Policies and guidelines do exist (and there are so many more of them now than when I began editing 17 years ago) but they are not "rules" (and many of the guidelines are frequently invoked as policy). Wikipedia does have 5 pillars, though, which would be the closest thing to overarching policy. Summarily these are; encyclopedic WP, NPOV WP, Free NP, respectful & civil editors, no firm rules. English WP does have as a "policy" (per previous statements" called "Ignore All Rules." Essentially, it says that where the "rules" are preventing improvement, ignore them. I would argue that "rules" (or rather, particular interpretations of them) are keeping this article poorer than it could be, and in fact are getting in each other's way. Application of guidelines around sourcing and style are clearly resulting in a one-sided (i.e. biased) article - one that is not neutral. Thus, rigid application of a particular interpretation of particular policy and style guidelines prevents this article from living up to one of the five over-arching pillars. Consensus is repeatedly invoked to shut down many people who disagree with a few - I think a Princess Bride quote applies to that. This series has become the centre of a dramatic and very notable phenomenon, but the article about it ignores that entirely (and no, it has not been addressed anywhere in the article). That is truly a shame. LowKey (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I would invite you to re-read WP:NPOV; it does not mean that Wikipedia strives for some sort of artificial neutrality. Rather, it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Notably, that does not include user reviews or unquantifiable internet phenomena. Some sources are starting to pick up on this sort of thing, per The Hollywood Reporter above. We shall see where it goes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I have read it (I do wonder if a few of you know how arrogant seems your constant assumption of ignorance when people disagree) and I agree regarding what it means. My position is that this article fails that, because a very few editors are deciding reliability or sources (I have seen sources included, then excluded, and really only because some other source is found that is in more agreement with the bias of the article). Yes, I do agree that more time is needed to see where it goes. LowKey (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to shoot it down before someone lets fly with a conspiracy theory about Rotten Tomatoes removing negative reviews, I think such a suggestions is a bit of willful misunderstanding of what was happening. I think the platform was struggling with the volume of reviews hitting it and updating its page and people were simply getting cached earlier copies. Any suggestion of manual intervention to skew scores would need to come from a reliable source - reliable as in knowledgeable of the subject of how such platforms operate. LowKey (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
"Reception" doesn't contain actual "Reception"
Things we can learn from "Reception" section:
- some groups were complaining (some groups? seriously?)
- Andrew Blair sees critics as racist, sexist spammers
- responses to more diverse cast are "the reactionary backlash"
- we can learn how noble was vision of producers
- we can learn how Blair felt about criticism (you are evil, not me)
- we can learn how Ben Sledge perceive criticism (if you criticise The Rings Of Power, surely you are homophobic as well)
In other entertainment-related Wikipedia articles, reception typically refers to the cumulative response to the content as a whole. At least, that has been my experience as an editor and reader. Of course this section will be filled out once people actually watch the content. Right now, as my fellow editor Dumuzid said, it would be great if you could provide sources and recommendations for specific changes to foster more productive conversation. TNstingray (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend taking the reception content that is in the marketing section and move it to the reception section. Yes this is reception to the marketing rather than reception to the product, but surely the reception section could be subsectioned to reflect that. LowKey (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Reception to the marketing is not reception to the series, when the series is out and we have reception to it we will add it to the reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, which is it "the content as a whole" or only the episodes of the series? While episodes are not yet available, content certainly is. The section is titled, as it is for most such article "Reception" which implies that "...to the series" and "...to the marketing" are extraneous or at best subsections. Actually, I already addressed that in the comment to which you replied. Do what you will. I am not the first to raise this problem and likely will not be the last. Enjoy. LowKey (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Reception will primarily regard the response to the show in its full context after the season finale on October 14. As of now, it makes more sense to list information about marketing under the Marketing section. This Reception section generally reflects any other notable information about responses to the show not otherwise discussed throughout the article. TNstingray (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The reaction that is in the "Reception" section is also in response to the marketing. By your reasoning the section should not even exist yet, but it does exist and is misleading. Essentially, the section is a hatchet job being gatekept. LowKey (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Right now, it discusses perspectives on the general backlash to the product, which goes way beyond the parameters of the marketing section. It isn't a hatchet job; it's a catch-all for notable material that didn't fit as well in other sections. I'm just mentioning what it will eventually look like once the show comes out in its entirety. You can call it gate-keeping, but we are just attempting to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines as accurately as we can. If you have more specific changes you would suggest, that would be great. TNstingray (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it absolutely doesn't discuss perspectives on the general backlash - it presents exactly ONE misleading and distorted perspective and pretends that no other exists. LowKey (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The reaction in the reception section is to the casting, which does not just apply to marketing. We originally just mentioned the backlash in the casting section but there was support across multiple discussions for it to be moved to the reception section and made more prominent. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
So there is no section on casting? So "made more prominent" was a goal - yes, indeed, made much more prominent than it is in reality. Definitely a hatchet job. Well done, folks. LowKey (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
You are obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and are just a troll wanting to argue based on your opinions. One of the facets of Wikipedia is consensus, and consensus led to expanding the discussed material to its own section because it crossed into more dimensions than just casting. Again, if you would suggest specific changes, that would be a great start towards actually having a productive conversation. TNstingray (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
LowKey -- I don't know that I would go so far as TNstingray, but let me echo their final suggestion: draft something. A sentence. A paragraph. A section. A whole new article. Then we have something to discuss. Or marshal more reliable sources for consideration. I understand being frustrated, but shaking one's fist at Wikipedia in the abstract is unlikely to provoke change. Cheers, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Not my opinion, demonstrated fact. I am arguing against the editor's opinion that has been inserted into the article, but that is now called trolling. I see absolutely no point in drafting something that will be summarily dismissed because at least one editor flatly calls reality untrue and protects their own distorted opinion in the article. I have made a concrete suggestion, but for the record will repeat it - move the reception stuff scattered through the article into the reception section OR do away with the reception section and move the stuff in there back into the relevant section(s). The suggestion has been met with circular and self-contradicting dismissal, and repeated calls to make a suggestion. Of course, there is also the problem that even the treatment of criticism throughout the article is dismissive of all criticism no matter how valid. It has been made clear that nothing will be permitted to alter the tone of the article, because Adam at least has made clear that in his opinion it is representative. If I cannot get any meaningful discussion of even the generality of whether reality will be accepted as true, or what actually belongs in a reception section (the answers have so far been contradictory) I cannot begin to discuss actual edits. I did ask if a particular source would be acceptable, and the reply was sarcasm and a suggestion I simply grabbed an internet search result without reading it. So suggestions are ignored and questions are ridiculed. I do have ONE opinion - "consensus" on WP is a usually myth and is usually the term used for "the version insisted upon by the most dogged editors". Have a look at this talk page - it is littered with editors complaining about exactly the same obvious problem with this article, and the dismissal of complaints almost always invokes consensus. So "everybody agrees except for everybody who disagrees". Yes, I am now expressing my frustration. I have pretty much abandoned hope of this article being fixed. However, I was hoping to at least prompt a little reflection on the part of this article's gatekeepers. I dislike wikilawyering, but if NOTHERE is being invoked, perhaps consider "Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns;" that was already evident before I entered the conversation. LowKey (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I honestly sympathize, and you're not wrong about "dogged" editors. There is something of a group think issue on Wikipedia. I will be the first to admit it, and while I certainly fall victim to it, I try to be self-aware enough to keep those times somewhat rare. It's debatable whether or not I succeed. I will disagree that "consensus" is a myth, at least as we use it here. It is, again as you note, a consensus of a self-selecting group of editors who keep showing up, no doubt. But it is a real thing. I will confess those who show up merely griping I don't particularly pay attention to--at some point you simply cannot. You, on the other hand, provided me with a source when asked for one, and I respect that. You mention "whether reality will be accepted as true," and again, I somewhat agree. Wikipedia has real epistemological blind spots and strange distortions due to the way it has chosen to filter its sources. But I would suggest that if we were simply guided by "reality," you and I would be here arguing to no end with plenty of vacuous statements from authority on both sides. As I mentioned above, frustration is part and parcel of the Wikipedia experience. But remember, nothing is written in stone, and things change. Don't get me wrong; I think you and I have fundamental differences of opinion on the matters herein. But I would urge you to keep watching for more sources like the one you provided, and I can promise you that I'll do my darndest to give them a fair shake. Cheers, and have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
LowKey you continue to focus too much on personal opinions. Framing this as a difference of opinion between editors is not accurate or useful. The article needs to represent reliable sources and give WP:DUEWEIGHT to the different sides of the debate, regardless of the opinion of editors. You have failed to provide evidence to support a change in the article, and have refused to follow the very patient Dumuzid's advice to draft your own changes for us to discuss. You need to put effort into resolving the conflict rather than arguing about opinions if you wish to see changes. If you are not willing to do that then you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Adam, I tried to focus on whether a source would be reliable, and have tried to address the current undue weight being given to a fringe portion of the reaction. I keep mentioning opinions because you keep defending an article being only in a form that represents your opinion. I have explained why drafting a change is pointless, indeed I cannot even get a good-faith response about what kind of source to use. It would seem that I am not the one holding the stick, because I have said I won't be making changes and why and told you to have at it but you still keep directly addressing me to repeat the same criticisms over and over. Perhaps when the series is out and there is an actual response to the episodes there will be print material discussing the whys and wherefores. I understand why YT videos are not generally accepted as sources, but there is some difficulty in that when so much that used to be "articles" is now only in video format. The YT phenomenon currently in effect, whereby Amazon Studios trailers (and even cast/makers interviews elsewhere) are massively downvoted and filled with ironic commentary is something that really should qualify for inclusion, but I admittedly wouldn't know how best to write that without some of my own awe at the magnitude leaking in.
I tried and failed to address the cant of the article. I tried and failed to address the bias of the gatekeepers. Good luck with the article, and I look forward to reading it later when the dust settles. LowKey (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
What are reliable sources for Tolkien material? Certainly not journalists, least of all those invited to previews or directly paid by Amazon to write articles for magazines. Reliable sources are those people who run websites about Tolkien's works and their content, and who have done so for decades. Those who can put what is going on in and surrounding this tv show into context, which journalists cannot do. I daresay I am a better reliable source than any journalist, as for over 20 years until quite recently I used to run a Tolkien-related website and had the biggest collection of Tolkien-related maps on the web until I clashed with the Tolkien Estate.
As for the YouTube stuff: on all platforms that host trailers for ROP the backlash has been overwhelming, not just YT. But since YT is open to anyone and its viewership represents a sufficiently mixed sample of the global population (not just US), the upvotes vs downvotes are a valid indication about reception. ♆ CUSH ♆09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources for Tolkien's original material include actual Tolkien scholars, not fan-generated content (WP:UGC). As a piece of television, this article goes beyond the scope of the written material to discuss production, casting, music, marketing, etc. Those are recorded in the same way as any other Hollywood production. No Tolkien 'fan' can put "what is going on in and surrounding this tv show into context" because none of them have seen it yet. Here on Wikipedia, we try our best to stick to reliable sources and verifiable information, though none of us are perfect.
I am also genuinely curious, how do you have access to the dislikes on YouTube? Didn't YouTube disable dislikes in November 2021? Actual marketing on YouTube did not begin until January 2022 with the title reveal. TNstingray (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I have gone against my own intent of staying clear and made some small edits. They are not in the receptions section (but I mention them here because this is where the discussion started) but in the writing section. Two I would call minor - one of which very minor. One qualifies that the creators reference some letters. The existing statement was very vague. In fact they seem to quote-mine, because the letter they use to say Tolkien was in favour of new material being written was in fact him saying he had had that position in the past but had abandoned it. The other changes an indication of what the creators wanted to a report of what they said they wanted. We cannot know their intent, only their statements about it. The 3rd edit is a bit more material. I corrected an inaccuracy in the article arising from uncritical repetition of the creators' inaccuracy. Harfoots were not precursors of hobbits but in fact the most numerous grouping even at the end of the 3rd age. If that shows the creators' statements about this in poor light, that is not the fault of the article. Completely as an aside - this should actually put to bed any racist leanings against portraying darker hobbits. Most of them were dark. The Gamgees would have been harfoot, whereas Bagginses, Brandybucks and Tooks had fallowhide (i.e. pale-skinned) ancestry. LowKey (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no difference between "referenced letters that Tolkien wrote" and "referenced some of the letters that Tolkien wrote", all you did was add unnecessary words. The suggestion that this makes the statement any less vague is silly, it is still vague because we don't know which ones. As for your Harfoots change, it is WP:OR and not supported by the sources. Even if some of the Hobbits in the Third Age are actually Harfoots, the Harfoots in this series would still be precursors to them, and that is how they are described in reliable sources. I have restored the sourced wording and added another source we have in the article to further support it. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, you have proved your bias and willingness to include inaccurate information for the sake of injecting it. It was not original research at all. For the harfoots change, I simply followed the link in the article to the hobbits article. That article is sourced, and I literally have hardcopy of the source close at hand. Harfoots were and are hobbits. Not precursors; hobbits. The source for that is a John Ronald Reuel Tolkien in The Fellowship of the Ring, "Prologue" as indicated in the hobbit article. That is obviously the definitive source for this. The source you added is simply a journalist repeating what the LOTR:ROP creators say, which is inaccurate because it is at odds with what Tolkien clearly said, and is useless as a source because it is redundant, merely repeating another source. Tolkien said "Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallowhides." Hobbits as a race of Middle-Earth predated Harfoots, not the other way around. Of the Harfoots, Tolkien also said (in the same prologue), " They were the most normal and representative variety of Hobbit, and far the most numerous." Thus, according to Tolkien, the creator of all of this lore, if you have Harfoots you necessarily have Hobbits. It is time you dropped the stick and allowed some good faith improvement. LowKey (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I seriously don't know how you can describe journalists repeating the same error as the creators as reliable sources, when the most reliable source on Hobbits, JRRT himself, has made such clear statements to the contrary within the material which the creators are entitled to use. I am struggling to accept that such statements of yours are good faith. How can you honestly think that Tolkien is a less reliable source for Tolkien's characters and races than an entertainment magazine? LowKey (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The Professor is currently unable to share his actual thoughts or opinions on the show, and thus we cannot directly apply them to an article about the show. To do so is original research on the part of us editors. This is why we rely on secondary sources. TNstingray (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Check the edit. It is the professor's actual thoughts on harfoots and the statement says so. Obviously, that is why the link to the hobbit article was already there, and I used the same source as that other article. The problem was this article was contradicted by the pre-existing article that that linked. Effectively you are saying that lies about what Tolkien said are more reliable than what Tolkien said. We rely on primary sources all the time for fiction. That very section of this article relies on direct statements by the showrunners. Well, I tried a good faith edit, which should have been entirely non-controversial and this is the result. About what I expected. LowKey (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC).
@LowKey Forgive me if I am wrong, but in these [2][3] edits you attempted to directly insert Tolkien's lines based on your own personal opinion, also known as original research (ad nauseam). We rely on primary sources all the time for fiction would be correct if we were discussing the page, The Fellowship of the Ring, yet alas, we are not. TNstingray (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong. Forgiveness would be a function of acknowledging that. It was not my own personal opinion. The statement was already directly about the contrast between what Tolkien wrote and the show writers wrote but - and here is the thing - relied entirely on what the show writers said Tolkien wrote, which was inaccurate and thus the article was inaccurate. Many critics have pointed this out, but as the vast majority have done so in YT videos, I have not felt confident in citing them. This is one of the major problems with this article; there are major criticisms being made and while the gatekeeping editors here say they are addressed throughout the article, they simply are not and the gatekeepers will not allow them to be addressed. Frankly, the article warrants a Criticism section. LowKey (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I said. Am I wrong to assume that each of your additions were your interpretations of a primary source with no critical commentary? Because that is what exactly what it looks like. I wanted to believe that you were actually here to work collaboratively on this great encyclopedia, but I was mistaken. TNstingray (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to believe that you were actually here to work collaboratively on this encyclopedia, but I was mistaken. In a statement of objective fact, I removed the bit that is not objective fact and inserted no other statement, merely leaving the link to the relevant WP article. You have now re-inserted an error and claimed it to be "objective fact". Read the way it is written; in that portion it is not conveying the showmakers' opinion at all, it is declaring a fact (which is based on the showmakers opinion, repeated by tertiary source). CNET for this reference is unreliable and unacceptable.
Your own description of how harfoots are "precursors" is entirely your own opinion and does not match the reasoning given by the showrunners at all.
"Am I wrong to assume that each of your additions were your interpretations of a primary source with no critical commentary?" - Yes. The edit you reverted had no interpretation and no addition. I removed a statement of fact about harfoots and hobbits which is incorrect. I made no other claim and I left the showmakers' reasoning entirely intact. I was trying to make it neutral. The way I had it said the show has harfoots, with a link to WP's relevant article, and has the showmakers reasons for having them. There is no criticism there at all. But congratulations on your edit warring.
People repeatedly come to this talk page to highlight the problems in the article. You tell them to make suggestions and/or edits. I did both, and tried very hard to remove something that is objectively wrong without actually affecting the statement as a whole. I have been met with hostility and insult. LowKey (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If there needs to be a couple of words added to connect the sentence to reflect the showrunners statement, then I will do so. Simple as that. The reason your suggestions and edits have been turned down is because you are not following the policies and regulations of Wikipedia that you agreed to follow when you made an account, despite every attempt to point you in the right directions. TNstingray (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
"If there needs to be a couple of words added to connect the sentence to reflect the showrunners statement" That would be the entire next sentence. That how paragraphs work.
"The reason your suggestions and edits have been turned down is because you are not following the policies and regulations of Wikipedia that you agreed to follow when you made an account, despite every attempt to point you in the right directions". No, that is not the reason at all. The portion I removed was a statement of fact, not the showmakers' opinion, was originally unsourced then latterly cited an unreliable source. In my removal, I simply left in a link for readers to go read the WP article that explains the terms. I cited the source here, but when that was unacceptable, I relied on the sources cited in the defining WP article. The reasons my suggestions and edits have been turned down is because they are an attempt at neutrality. LowKey (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
That said, I think "depicted as" is also perfectly fine. It actually does make the statement of fact about the show rather than about harfoots. LowKey (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Glad that's settled. I thought that two back-to-back sentences in a paragraph would be enough to connect the Harfoot depiction to the showrunners, but hopefully the extra clarification helps. Happy editing. TNstingray (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I removed "further" from the explanation. This is simply because it seems to be the first mention of explanation in relation to harfoots. Absolutely nothing more to it beyond that. LowKey (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Beth Timken, "ratings" are a television concept from another time, which is a bare statistic of how many people watched a given program. That sort of statistic obviously has new and different wrinkles in our streaming world. More directly applicable, I think, is this language from that reference: Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. I think you can see why that at least seems to me directly aimed at your proposed text. If you could further respond in the section at the very bottom, there are others who probably are closer to your position than I am. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The negative public response is now a phenomenon. It has been written up in Forbes and Amazon has disabled customer reviews. Wouldn't it be appropriate to at least mention this in Wikipedia? Beth Timken (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
If one moves the mouse while playing the video, a pop-up will appear to list the characters currently on screen. It also shows a little trivia box. ♆ CUSH ♆19:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
All good. I didn't think it had come in dialog and couldn't recall if he was named in the LOTR appendices and therefore "available" for naming in the series. LowKey (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Removing unclear and irrelevant sentences
There is a passage in "Reception" which goes:
Andrew Blair at Den of Geek discussed how this was an example of the increasing racist and sexist complaints made by certain online groups about different media projects over the prior decade (such as the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot and the Star Wars sequel trilogy), using some established techniques such as "spamming and overwhelming conversation". As part of the backlash on various online forums and comment sections, members of these groups often used the following quote which they incorrectly attributed to Tolkien: "Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good." Blair felt this was "colossally lacking in self-awareness".
(As an aside, the quote could be seen as a paraphrase, as this is what Frodo says about the orcs in The Return of the King: "The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them...")
What really matters is that neither the quote nor Blair's reaction to it have any clear meaning in this context or relevance for the topic. I'll remove them and keep only the first sentence and the reference. Sobol Sequence (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Sobol Sequence Hi, thank you for your BOLD edit, and here's to hoping we can have a productive conversation. I reverted your edit because I think consensus had established that this is notable commentary regarding one response to the show. So, I think it is still relevant, though I could understand an argument for it not being the most reliable source. Regarding the quote though, while it might be a paraphrase, it is still incorrectly attributed to Tolkien in the form often used on some of these online forums. However, I agree that this does stray beyond the confines of casting controversy to a general response to the show. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@TNstingray, thanks for your quick reply. I don't have a problem with notability or reliability here. What bothers me is the lack of clarity. Firstly, what was the purpose of the quote as used by those people? Secondly, what did Blair mean by their lack of self-awareness? I find it confusing. If the meaning is crystal clear to you, then never mind, keep the text. But if you have doubts too, it should be either deleted or reworded.Sobol Sequence (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I added this information as it is currently written and I think it is clear enough, but happy for suggestions on how to improve understanding. The "lack of self-awareness" line is referring to Internet trolls who are describing the series as "evil" that "can only distort and destroy" good things when, in the opinion of the article's writer, those people are themselves distorting and destroying something good based on their own "evil" racist views. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I already added the info on review bombing on Sept 3, citing milder (and more reputable) articles in the Independent and the Hollywood Reporter. But I agree that leaving out IMDB scores is wise while they might be tainted by review bombing.Grhabyt (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
It's important to remember that IMDB is NOT a neutral source in this case since it's owned by Amazon (since 1996), and IMDB has hidden all the worst reviews (under 6 stars) from the site. This has been confirmed across several media, but just to leave a couple links you could check here here (youtube), here (imdb forums) or here. They sadly don't seem coming from good sources so we can't really put them into the article I think, but it's definitely happening. Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if IMDb is neutral or not because it is not reliable, and for the record it appears that your own sources are not reliable either. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
